Iranian Journal of Chemical Engineering Vol. 8, No.

1 (Winter), 2011, IAChE

Simulation Study of Enhanced Condensate Recovery in a Gas-Condensate Reservoir

Sh. Amini1, B. Aminshahidy2, M. Afshar3 1, 3 Petroleum University of Technology, Tehran, Iran. 2 Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tehran, Iran.

Abstract
In gas condensate reservoirs, by reservoir depletion, pressure decreases below the dew point pressure of the fluid and condensate forms in the reservoir. This heavy part of the gas has found many applications in industry and also in daily life. When condensate drops out in the reservoir not only is this valuable liquid lost, but also its accumulation results in forming a condensate bank near the wellbore region. The created bank makes a considerable reduction in gas well productivity. These facts demonstrate that finding an economical way to increase the condensate recovery from condensate reservoirs is essential. In this study gas injection has been simulated in a gas condensate reservoir to increase the condensate recovery factor. In addition, capability of injection of different types of gas in condensate recovery has been compared through different injection schemes. The injection schemes that have been considered are: different injection rates, different reservoir pressures at which the injection is implemented and different injection durations. A compositional simulator was applied to simulate a simplified gas condensate reservoir model. The injection pattern was a one-eighth of a five-spot pattern with finer grids near the producer and injector. The simulation results showed an increase in condensate recovery from 5% to 30% in all injection cases. Many parameters can affect the decision of selecting the injection scheme, other than the gas and condensate recovery factor. Therefore, an economical evaluation and analysis is inevitable to take them all into account to determine the optimum scheme. Keywords: Enhanced Condensate Recovery, Gas Condensate Reservoirs, Gas Recycling, Reservoir Simulation, Condensate Drop-Out

1- Introduction In gas-condensate reservoirs gas injection is an operation applied to reduce the condensate drop-out in the reservoir. Condensate is formed from valuable heavy components of hydrocarbon mixtures. Accumulation of
Corresponding author: aminsh@um.ac.ir

condensate in a reservoir can cause a reduction in gas permeability and result in decreasing gas well productivity [1]. However, according to the research, gas condensate relative permeability varies with production rate at near wellbore condition[1].

Amini, Aminshahidy, Afshar

The flow in this region is controlled by the complex interaction of capillary, viscous and inertial forces [2]. At low condensate saturations the relative permeability values decrease when the flow rate increases, due to the dominance of the inertial effect. However, the positive coupling effect surpassed the inertial effect at higher condensate saturation, resulting in a net increase of relative permeability with rate [3,4]. Injection can be implemented at the initial reservoir pressure to maintain the pressure above the dew point (full pressure maintenance), or after the reservoir pressure falls below the dew point pressure (partial pressure maintenance) [5], in which injected gas re-vaporizes the condensate and reduces condensate accumulation in the reservoir. Gas cycling has been implemented in gas condensate reservoirs for many years, but due to more applications and the value of natural gas, engineers were forced to find an appropriate replacement for it in the injection process. N2 and CO2 were suggested as two alternatives which are now applied in some reservoirs [6, 7]. As N2 is an available and a non-corrosive gas, it is a good alternative and can be properly applied for this purpose. Injection of these gases into the reservoir

vaporizes condensate and increases the reservoir fluid dew-point pressure. The contact of the injected gas with the condensate leads to enrichment of the gas due to mass transfer [8]. This study compares the efficiency of injection of different gases of N2, CO2, and CH4 and also gas cycling for condensate recovery from a gas condensate reservoir. For this work a compositional simulator has been applied and different injection schemes have been simulated. In these schemes the effect of changing the injection rate, injection pressure and injection duration on recovery have been investigated. The appropriate and optimum case can be selected considering the results of the simulation work and performing an economical analysis. In this case, all the affecting parameters such as the price of the gas and condensate, the price of the injection gases and the cost of the facilities needed in each scheme for each pressure level should be considered. 2- Model description In order to simulate the model, a simplified gas-condensate reservoir model has been applied. The reservoir specifications and fluid properties have been tabulated in Tables 1-3.

Table 1. Reservoir properties

Layer 1 2 3 4

kh (md) 130 40 20 150

kv (md) 13 4 2 15

Thickness (ft) 30 30 50 50

Initial pressure (psia) Reservoir temperature (F) Porosity PV compressibility (psi-1) water compressibility (psi-1)

5248 219 0.13 4.00E-06 3.00E-06

Iranian Journal of Chemical Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 1

Simulation Study of Enhanced Condensate Recovery in a Gas-Condensate Reservoir

A three dimensional model of one-eighth of a five-spot pattern has been considered to simulate the injection pattern. Due to the symmetrical form of the five-spot injection pattern one-eighth of it has been considered, which makes the simulation run time program remarkably shorter [9]. A schematic of this model has been shown in Fig. 1.

to model the fluid flow more accurately. As the blocks located in the border of the simulation grid are smaller than that of the described model, their porosity and transmissibility have been reduced to half, quarter and one eighth of their initial size according to their location.
injector

Figure 2. Simulation model constructed in CMG model builder

Figure1. Schematic of one eighth of a five spot injection pattern [6]

The constructed reservoir model (in CMG model builder module) is one-eighth of a 31314 grid, with the dimensions of 2903.5 (ft) in I and J directions, and 110(ft) in K direction, which has been shown in Fig. 2. One injector and one producer are located in the corners of the grid. Smaller grids are made near the injector and producer in order
Iranian Journal of Chemical Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 1

3- Results and discussion Based on the aim of the study, different runs have been implemented on the simulated model. In this model the third and the forth layers are opened to production, and injection is performed through the first and the second layers. Production period is 15 years and the maximum rate of the production is 2.4 MMSCF/D, which has been set as the first constraint. The second constraint is the minimum bottom-hole pressure which is equal to 500 psia. Firstly, reservoir behavior by natural depletion was investigated. Reservoir pressure and average condensate saturation in the reservoir during this period have been shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, respectively.
5

Amini, Aminshahidy, Afshar

6000

80
Recovery factor, % recovery factor, %
Average reservoir pressure, psia 5000

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0

Injection Rate: 2.4

4000

3000

2000

no injection no injection N2 N2 CH4 CH4 CO2 CO2

1000

1000

2000

3000 4000 Time, day time, day

5000

6000

0 0

1000

2000

3000 Time, day

4000

5000

6000

Figure 3. Average reservoir pressure during natural depletion period

0.015

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0

Recovery factor, % recovery factor, %

Injection Rate: 1.8 (MMSCF/D)

no injection injection no N2 N 2 CH4 CH 4 CO2 CO 2 gas cycling cycling gas

1000

2000

3000
time, day Time, day

4000

5000

6000

Oil saturation

0.010

80 70
0.005

Recovery factor, % recovery factor, %

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0

Injection Rate: 1.2 (MMSCF/D)

no no injection injection

0 0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

N2 N 2
CH CH4 4

Average reservoir pressure, psia

CO2 CO 2 gar cycling cycling gas

Figure 4. Average condensate saturation during natural depletion period

1000

2000

3000
Time, time,day day

4000

5000

6000

3.1- Effect of injection gas type

80 70 reco very facto r, %

Recovery factor, %

In this section, the effects of three injection gases and gas cycling with different rates have been investigated. Composition of the recycled gas is given in Table 1. Injection was implemented at the initial reservoir pressure. As can be observed from Fig. 5, when the injection rate is equal to the production rate, the performance of CO2 and CH4 in condensate recovery is almost the same. They make an increase of about 24% compared to the base case (no injection case)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0

Injection Rate: 0.6 (MMSCF/D)

no injection no injection N2 N2 CH4 CH4

CO2 CO2 gas cycling gas cycling

1000

2000

3000
Time, time,day day

4000

5000

6000

Figure 5. Comparison of condensate recovery of different injection gases in different cases of injection rate at initial reservoir pressure

Iranian Journal of Chemical Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 1

Simulation Study of Enhanced Condensate Recovery in a Gas-Condensate Reservoir

in which condensate recovery is about 50%, whereas N2 can only make an increase of about 15% [10]. According to the previous studies, the addition of some nitrogen causes a considerable increase in mixture dew-point pressure. This dew-point eventually becomes much higher than the reservoir pressure. Depending on the level of mixing and dispersion, liquid drop out occurs, thus the efficiency of the process is reduced [11]. This fact can be observed from Fig. 6 in which the phase envelope of the fluids resulted from mixing N2, CO2 , and CH4 with the reservoir fluid has been compared. Gas cycling with a rate equal to the production rate was excluded.

about 80%, while by CO2, CH4 and N2 injection, recoveries are 73%, 70%, and 65% respectively. Based on the experiments and studies done before, N2 injection is not as effective as CH4 and CO2, as it causes higher liquid drop out, and has lower evaporating capacity than the other gases [12]. By lowering the injection rate, condensate recoveries for all the gases are similar to each other.
Table 2. Reservoir fluid composition

Component N2 CO2 H2S CH4 C2H6 C3H8 iC4H10 nC4H10 iC5H12 nC5H12 Pseudo C6 C7+ Fluid Molar Mass (g/mol) C7+ Molar Mass (g/mol) C7+ Density (g/cm3)

Mole% 3.15 2.15 0.08 83.32 5.37 1.89 0.43 0.69 0.31 0.26 0.44 1.03 21.85 141.02 0.7888

Figure 6. Comparison of phase envelope resulted from mixing different injection gases with the reservoir fluid

High injection rate results in the early breakthrough of the injection gases and reduces the ultimate gas recovery to a very low value. Recovery of gas and condensate for all the injection cases has been given in Tables 2 through 5. For the other injection rates, gas cycling is the most effective way to increase the condensate recovery. When the injection rate is 75% of the production rate (1.8 MMSCF/D), the recovery by gas cycling is
Iranian Journal of Chemical Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 1

It can be seen in Fig. 7 that during the injection period the capability of CO2 in removing the condensate in the reservoir is less than the other gases, but after the injection, condensate saturation increases rapidly in all the cases except for the CO2 injection. Another difference between CO2 injection and other gases is in condensate accumulation in the near wellbore region
7

Amini, Aminshahidy, Afshar

after the injection period finishes. By CO2 injection the condensate accumulation in this region does not occur, contrary to the other cases in which condensate accumulation in the near wellbore region is even higher than that of natural depletion of the reservoir. Capability of CO2 in removing the condensate plug from the near gascondensate wells region and its long-term effect has also been shown in previous studies [12].
0.016
Condensatesaturation saturation condensate

75% of the production rate, which are shown in Fig. 8, are discussed below.
80 condensate recovery, %

Condensate recovery, %

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0

CH4 injection

2500 psia 3500 psia 4500 psia 5248 psia

1000

2000

3000 time,day day Time,

4000

5000

6000

80 70

Recovery factor, % recovery factor, %

CO2 injection

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1000 2000 3000 time,day day Time, 4000 5000 6000

2500 psia 3500 psia 4500 psia 5248 psia

0.014 0.012 0.01 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0 0 1000 2000 3000
Time, day time, day
CH4 CH4 gas cycling cycling N2 N2 CO2 CO2 no injection injection no

4000

5000

6000

70 60

Figure 7. Effect of different injection gases on condensate saturation reduction during the production period (with the injection rate of 1.8 MMSCF/D at the initial reservoir pressure)

Recovery factor, % recovery factor, %

N2 injection

50 40 30 20 10
2500 psia 3500 psia 4500 psia 5248 psia

3.2- Effect of injection at different reservoir pressures

0 0 1000 2000 3000 time, day days Time, 4000 5000 6000

Injection can be started at the initial pressure of the reservoir (at the time of production), or after the reservoir pressure drops to a certain pressure. The second alternative demands a lower injection pressure so the required facilities will be less expensive. Our model has been run at the reservoir pressures of 5248 psia (initial reservoir pressure), 4500 psia, 3500 psia and 2500 psia. The effect of injecting at different pressures has been investigated for four different rates. The results for the rate of
8

90

Condensate recovery, condensate recovery, % %

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

2500 psia 3500 psia 4500 psia 5248 psia

Gas cycling

Time, day time, day

Figure 8. Effect of different injection pressures on condensate recovery with the injection rate of 1.8 MMSCF/D Iranian Journal of Chemical Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 1

Simulation Study of Enhanced Condensate Recovery in a Gas-Condensate Reservoir

condensate% recovery, %

Condensate recovery,

The results of CH4 injection and gas cycling with the rate of the 1.8 MMSCF/D (75% of the production rate), show that when injection pressure is 4500 psi, recovery of the condensate reduces, but by further pressure reduction to 3500 psi, the recovery increases to a value equal to the injection at initial pressure or more (in the case of gas cycling). The graph for N2 injection shows that recovery does not change much by injecting at the lower pressures than the initial pressure. Finally, condensate recovery by CO2 injection decreases by decreasing the injection pressure.

80
Condensate recovery, condensate recovery, % %

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0

CH4 injection

no injection 0.6 mmscf/d 1.2 mmscf/day 1.8 mmscf/day 2.4 mmscf/day

1000

2000

3000
Time,day day time,

4000

5000

6000

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
no injection 0.6 mmscf/day 1.2 mmscf/day 1.8 mmscf/day 2.4 mmscf/day

CO2 injection

3.3- Effect of injection rate

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Effect of four different rates (equal to 1, 0.75, 0.5, 0.25 times of the production rate) on the condensate recovery by all the injection gases can be observed in Fig. 9. Injection has been implemented in the initial reservoir pressure. For the case of CO2 injection, recovery of condensate for the two highest rates is almost the same, while the recovery of gas (given in Table 2) for the second rate is much higher than the first one. Condensate recovery by N2 injection is not as sensitive to the rate and is equal for the first three levels of the rate. While the condensate recovery changes only about 5% from the higher rate to the lower one for N2 injection, this change for CO2 injection is 14%. In the case of CH4 injection and gas cycling, changing the rate makes a noticable change in recovery, especially in gas cycling.

Time,day day time,

condensate% recovery, %

Condensate recovery,

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0

gas gascycling cycling

no injection 0.6 mmscf/day 1.2 mmscf/day 1.8 mmscf/day

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Time, day time, day

70 condensate recovery, % %

Condensate recovery,

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0

N2 injection

no injection 0.6 mmscf/day 1.2 mmscf/day 1.8 mmscf/day 2.4 mmscf/day

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Time,day day time,

Figure 9. Effect of different injection rates on condensate recovery with the injection at initial reservoir pressure

Iranian Journal of Chemical Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 1

Amini, Aminshahidy, Afshar

3.4- Effect of injection duration

80

Effect of injection duration has been investigated by changing the injection duration from 10 years to 8 and 5 years for all the injection gases with an injection rate of 75% of the production rate, and the results are shown in Fig. 10. In the cases of CO2 and CH4 injection and gas cycling, the recovery increases by increasing the injection duration from 5 to 8 years, while this increase is not considerable from 8 years of injection to 10 years. In the case of N2 injection, increasing the injection period from 5 years to 8 and 10 years makes no change in condensate recovery.

Condensate recovery, condensate recovery, % %

70 60 50 40 30

CH4 injection

no injection 20 10 0 0 1000 2000 3000 Time, day 4000 5000 6000 5 years 8 years 10 years

time, day

80
Condensate recovery, condensate recovery, % %

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0

CO2 injection

no injection 5 years 8 years 10 years

1000

2000

3000 time, Time,day day

4000

5000

6000

3.5- Consideration of gas and condensate recovery factor The condensate and gas recovery factors of all of the runs of the simulated model have been given in Tables 4-7. In these tables, the effect of all parameters investigated in this study can be observed. The early breakthrough of all injection gases with high injection rates results in considerable reduction in the ultimate gas recovery, and discourages their use in condensate recovery enhancement. It should be remembered that the result of an injection work in a reservoir greatly depends on the reservoir fluid. The effect of mixing the injection gases with the reservoir fluid can cause different responses in different reservoirs. This results from a thermodynamic analysis of gas injection in two gas-condensate reservoirs [13].

70
Condensate recovery, condensate recovery, % %

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1000 2000 3000

Time, day time, day
no injection 5 years 8 years 10 years

4000

5000

6000

90
Condensate recovery, condensate recovery, % %

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1000 2000 3000

Time,day day time,
no injection 5 years 8 years 10 years

4000

5000

6000

Figure 10. Effect of changing the injection duration on condensate recovery with an injection rate of 1.8 (MMSCF/D)

10

Iranian Journal of Chemical Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 1

Simulation Study of Enhanced Condensate Recovery in a Gas-Condensate Reservoir

Table 3. Composition of recycled gas H2S CO2 N2 C1 C2 C3 IC4-NC4 IC5-NC5 FC6-C9 C10-C13 C14+ 0.0814 2.1819 3.2028 84.5192 5.4475 1.9126 1.1253 0.5585 0.9156 0.0554 0.0000

Table 4. Recovery factors at the injection pressure of 5248 (psia), (initial reservoir pressure)

Component Rate Recovery Factor (%)

2.4 (MMSCF/D) Condensate Gas 1.8 (MMCSF/D) Condensate Gas 1.2 (MMSCF/D) Condensate Gas 0.6 (MMSCF/D) Condensate Gas

CO2

N2

CH4

Cycling

73.828 52.376 72.828 78.349 67.298 86.793 59.989 89.009

64.597 52.376 64.938 78.524 64.025 88.129 59.796 89.856

73.39 52.376 69.836 78.571 65.589 88.49 60.604 89.855 80.139 78.571 71.947 88.163 63.003 89.646

Table 5. Recovery factors at the injection pressure of 4500 (psia)

Component Rate Recovery Factor (%)

2.4 (MMSCF/D) 1.8 (MMCSF/D) 1.2 (MMSCF/D) 0.6 (MMSCF/D) Condensate Gas Condensate Gas Condensate Gas Condensate Gas

CO2

N2

CH4

Cycling

74.018 41.907 71.197 77.839 65.922 86.752 59.547 88.832

64.097 41.906 64.739 70.719 62.978 88.218 58.767 89.793

70.489 52.404 67.323 78.593 64.431 88.514 59.921 89.855 76.365 78.593 70.055 88.179 61.702 89.596

Iranian Journal of Chemical Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 1

11

Amini, Aminshahidy, Afshar

Table 6. Recovery factors at the injection pressure of 3500 (psi)

Component Rate Recovery Factor (%) 2.4 (MMSCF/D) Condensate Gas 1.8 (MMCSF/D) Condensate Gas 1.2 (MMSCF/D) Condensate Gas 0.6 (MMSCF/D) Condensate Gas

CO2

N2

CH4

Cycling

72.057 52.376 68.609 77.829 64.247 86.628 58.996 88.339

63.617 27.077 64.535 59.597 61.587 88.422 57.231 89.428

72.808 27.077 69.927 59.597 63.227 88.571 58.92 89.65 81.57 59.597 67.668 88.211 59.894 89.321

Table 7. Recovery factors at the injection pressure of 2500 (psi)

Component Rate Recovery Factor (%) 2.4 (MMSCF/D) Condensate Gas 1.8 (MMCSF/D) Condensate Gas 1.2 (MMSCF/D) Condensate Gas 0.6 (MMSCF/D) Condensate Gas

CO2

N2

CH4

Cycling

67.33 52.405 64.657 77.838 62.122 83.553 56.988 85.92

61.678 52.405 60.689 78.592 58.811 85.811 54.794 87.613

64.641 52.405 63.27 78.593 61.202 86.894 66.801 88.193 69.061 78.593 63.702 86.125 56.747 87.63

12

Iranian Journal of Chemical Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 1

Simulation Study of Enhanced Condensate Recovery in a Gas-Condensate Reservoir

By doing an economical evaluation the optimum case for the injection can be determined. The factors that can affect the decision of selecting one of the cases studied are: the price of the gas and condensate, the price of the injection gas, expenses of the facilities needed in each injection condition and the separation of the injection gas from the reservoir gas. 4- Conclusions Gas cycling is the most effective way to increase the condensate recovery. By reducing the injection rate capability of CO2, CH4, N2 and gas cycling in condensate recovery approaches together. CO2 injection results in removing the condensate accumulated in the near wellbore region during the injection period and it can also prevent the accumulation of the condensate for a certain time after the injection is stopped. Condensate recovery by N2 injection changes very slightly when the injection is implemented in different reservoir pressures. Injecting at pressures lower than the initial pressure of the reservoir results in greater or the same condensate recovery in some cases (compared to the case of injecting at initial reservoir pressure). Condensate recovery by N2 injection changes slightly by changing the injection rate.

increases by increasing the injection duration, but this increase is not considerable from 8 years of injection to 10 years. References
[1] Mott, R., "Engineering calculations of gascondensate well productivity", SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, Vol. 6, pp. 298-306, (2003). [2] Jamiolahmady, M., Sohrabi, M., Ghahri, P. and Ireland, S., "Gas/Condensate relative permeability in low permeability core; Coupling vs. Inertia", Paper SPE 120088 , accepted for presentation at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, Bahrain, 15-18 March, (2009). [3] Henderson, G.D., Danesh, A. and Tehrani, D.H., "Effect of positive rate sensitivity and inertia on gas condensate relative permeability at high velocity", Petroleum Geosciences. 7, 4550, (2001). [4] Henderson, G., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D. and Al-kharusi, B., "The relative significance of positive coupling and inertial effects on gas condensate relative permeabilities at high velocity", Dallas, Texas: 2000,. Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc., (2000). [5] Abel, W., Jackson, R.F., and Wattenbarger, R.A., "Simulation of a partial pressure maintenance gas cycling project with a compositional model, Carson Creek Field, Alberta.", JPT, January, 38-46, (1970). [6] Evison, B. and Gikhrist, R.E., "New developments in nitrogen in the oil industry", Paper SPE 24313, presented at the SPE Mid-Continent Gas Symposium, Texas, 13-14 April, (1992). [7] Striefel, M.A., Montana, C., Ahmed, T.H. and Cady, G.V. "Cycling with air and other nonhydrocarbon gases.", Paper SPE 13229, SPE Reservoir Engineering, November, (1987). [8] Al-Anazi, H.A., Sharma, M.M. and Pope, G.A., "Revaporisation of condensate with 13

Increasing the injection duration from 5

years to 8 and 10 years has no effect on the condensate recovery when N2 is injected. In cases of CO2 and CH4 injection and gas cycling the recovery

Iranian Journal of Chemical Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 1

Amini, Aminshahidy, Afshar

nethane flood", Paper SPE 90860, prepared for presentation at the 2004 SPE International Petroleum Conference in Mexico held in Pueblea, Mexico, 8-9 November, (2004). [9] Gyu Seo, J., "Experimental and simulation studies of sequestration of supercritical carbon dioxide in depleted gas reservoirs", Ph.D dissertation, May, (2004). [10] Sanger, P. and Hagoort, J. "Recovery of gas condensate by nitrogen injection compared with methane injection", Paper SPE 30795, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference held in Dallas, 22-25 October, (1995). [11] Siregar, S., Hagoort, J. and Ronde, H., "Nitrogen injection vs. gas cycling in rich retrograde condensate reservoirs", Paper SPE 22360, prepared for presentation at the SPE International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering held in Beijng, China, 24-27 March, (1992).

[12] Zaitsev, I.Y., Dmitrievsky, S.A., Norvik, H., Yufin, P.A., Bolotnik, D.N., Sarkisov, G.G. and Schepkina, N.E. "Compositional modeling and PVT analysis of pressure maintenance effect in gas condensate field: Comparative study", Paper SPE 36923, prepared for presentation at the 1996 SPE European Petroleum Conference held in Milan, Italy, 22-24 October, (1996). [13] Piers, A.P., Correa, A.C.F, Mahamed, R.S. and Sousa Jr., R. "Optimization of lean gas injection in gas condensate reservoirs", Paper SPE 22360, prepared for presentation at the Eastern Regional Meeting held in Morgantown, West Virginia, 19-21 September, (1995).

14

Iranian Journal of Chemical Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 1